Selected Sunday Scriptures- #101 An Enduring Ailment

Wrath is cruel, anger is overwhelming;
    but who can stand before jealousy?

(Proverbs 27:4)

¹³ Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. ¹⁴ But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. ¹⁵ This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. ¹⁶ For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

(James 3:13-16)

For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations?

(1 Cor 3:3)

I have a problem with envy. It has proven a most persistent sin to eliminate from my life. Not that it has the most hold on me, but it is persistent all the same. That is not to say that I haven’t made improvements- I have. Yet I know I have a long way to go. It is an easy thing to say “count your blessings.” But it is another entirely to actually focus on what you have, and be thankful for it, rather than to look on that which is enjoyed by others.

Jesus called out the Pharisees for cleaning the outside of their bodies, while ignoring their hearts in matters of purification. I need to spend more time on that myself. As it is, I know that envy is hurting my efforts to live a spiritual life. I will ask of God the same thing that King David asked:

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
    and put a new and right spirit within me.

(Psalm 51:10)

The Mammon Trap- Replacing The Holy Spirit

[This post will almost certainly need some after-the-fact clarification. If anything needs some clearing up, let me know in the comments.]

I. Introduction

Today’s post relies on my recent Background post, found here.

I’m not sure if he was the first one to say it or not, but Rollo Tomassi of The Rational Male was the first person I ever saw who made the claim that “the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit in Churchianity.” Others have made similar statements, including Dalrock, but Rollo is the first I recall saying something to that effect.  I never gave it much thought, even as I saw some truth behind it. So I never stopped to grasp what was really happening with that phenomenon. Or what it actually meant on a theological level. But in the past few months I have been studying Eastern Spirituality and broadening my grasp of Christian theology. During that time I came across the model which was highlighted in that recent background post of mine. Once I became familiar with it, I came to a deeper appreciation of the insidiousness of what is really happening with the whole “replacing the Holy Spirit” with the “FI.” This post will examine what is going on, and why it is so dangerous.

II. Replacing the Irreplaceable

I’m going to break up this next section into smaller pieces, in the hopes that it makes it easier to understand. Several different ideas have to come together for this to make any sense.

A. Trust Your Feelings

The “feminized church” plays a major role in this deviancy. Others have covered in depth, and likely to a degree far better than I could achieve, the extent of the “Feminizing” of Christian teaching and doctrine in recent years (and decades and centuries, etc.). I will leave that to them and others posts. My focus is on the particular results here. However, I will say that much of this is owed to ignorance or misinformation about human nature, in particular female nature. More on that a little later. Without going too far into it, I suspect that the lead off point for this particular false doctrine finds its origins in the whole “Woman Good/Man Bad” line of thought. At its core this false teaching advances the idea that there is some inherent kind of unique “goodness” in Woman that is just waiting to manifest itself. At least, it would if Men would just get out of the way- or even better, affirmatively enable it. I am going to quote from the Dalrock link above, to provide just one example of this [there are plenty others to be found]:

God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart, designed to instruct her husband in how to meet her unique needs.

…

What she does have is that unique marriage manual in her heart for your marriage which is given to her from God.  The way that a man becomes the man that God has called him to be is to become the husband his wife needs him to be.  The only way to become the husband our wife needs us to be is to read our personal marriage manual.  How do we read that marriage manual?  We listen to her heart.

There are several things going on here:

1. First, on the face of it we see an argument that a Woman’s “heart” is to be trusted- we are to listen to it.  Specifically, we are to trust a woman’s feelings, because that is what is meant by “heart” here. By we I mean both men and women. After all, if the man can trust the woman’s feeling she should be able to trust her own, right?
2. On a deeper level, this line of thinking essentially argues that a woman’s feelings act as a direct manifestation of God’s Will. He created them in order to “teach” others. In other words, a woman’s feelings are almost a radio to God, not unlike the Ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTWh9tm1IX4
3. Again, this kind of thinking relies on this belief that there is something inherently good in Woman that isn’t present in Man, or that there is something inherently bad in Man that isn’t present in Woman. It basically turns a blind eye to the Fall and its consequences. Both men and women suffer from the effects of Original Sin- neither sex is inherently “good”, or “bad.” We are both fallen- all have fallen short.
4. This line of thought shows real ignorance of female nature. Part of the problem is that female sin manifests itself differently than male sin. Oftentimes male sin is more obvious, while female sin and sinful inclinations are more subtle and more circumspect (think Potiphar’s wife). So it can be easier to miss female specific, or female favored sins. At least, it can be easy for men to miss them. And this line of thought can only get real traction with male support.

When you combine all of this together  you have a recipe for disaster- the Feminine is elevated, and the Masculine is denigrated. This is a disaster because in elevating the Feminine in toto, you are also elevating female sins (or at least feminine centered ones). They are granted cover by virtue of being linked to the feminine.

B. The Deceitful Heart

This brings me to what I discussed in the Background post. In that post, I explained that human beings have a Body, Soul and Spirit, each of which possesses a corresponding Heart component (and love associated with it). When we speak of Heart in connection to the Body, we are referring to emotions, to feelings. The prophet Jeremiah had this to say about that particular aspect of the human Heart:

The heart is deceitful above all things,
    and desperately corrupt;
    who can understand it?

(Jeremiah 17:9)

We know that the Holy Prophet Jeremiah was referring to the Heart “component” of the human Body here because he refers to it as corrupt. Neither our Soul nor Spirit is “desperately corrupt”- but our Body is, because of Original Sin.

One consequence of Original sin is that the human Body has what St. Thomas Aquinas called the Law of the Fomes of Sin- what St. Paul called the Law of/in the Flesh. Our bodies have been corrupted or weakened, and thus prone to temptation. Now, this weakness or corruption is not absolute, but it is potent. A result of it is that our Appetites have become disordered, and no longer serve the Soul and Spirit. Instead they extinguish the life of the Spirit, and attempt to subvert the Soul so that it serves them (aka, Overbear the Will).

Feelings and emotions are tied to both our Sense function, as as well as our Appetites. They may well (and almost certainly do) have a connection to our Soul in addition, but they definitely are connected to our Body. This means that our emotions and feelings are susceptible to the weakness in our Flesh. Thus, our Feelings are not to be trusted. They may reveal some truth, but their very nature is deceptive. They work towards satisfying the desires of our Appetites, even when, perhaps especially when, those Appetites are no longer aligned with Reason.

C. Led Astray

Ultimately, we cannot trust the flesh- it will lead us astray, and keep us from living a Spiritual Life. The Flesh (our Body) and the Spirit, because of Original Sin, are opposed to one another. They no longer are in harmony, as they were in the Garden of Eden.

¹⁶ Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. ¹⁷ For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.

(Galatians 5:16-17)

Yet gratifying the desires of the flesh is exactly what Churchians would have us do when they tell us to trust the heart of Women- to trust in female feelings. In so doing, we are basically being told to trust in the desires of the flesh- so long as that flesh is Female. Further, they expect us to act on the desires of the flesh, in other words, to gratify it. As St. Paul clearly states, this is incompatible with a Spiritual Life. By doing that, we cater to, and focus on, worldly matters. Not Spiritual ones.

When you think about it, this whole doctrine is utterly absurd. Consider the reverse scenario- would a call for women to trust in the desires of the flesh of men gain any support at all? Much less anywhere near the support that “Woman Good/Man Bad” gets? Of course not. Nor should it. But again, this absurdity doesn’t stop plenty of people from believing it, or something like it.

What all of this leads to is a de facto replacement of the Holy Spirit by female desires of the flesh. Now, on the face of it, the Holy Spirit is technically still there in Churchian teaching. But as a practical matter living a Spiritual Life is impossible, effectively pushing the Holy Spirit out of a Christian’s life. As St. Paul explained, we can live a Spirit-led life or gratify the desires of the flesh. But when most Christians are taught to trust and follow female feelings, and to realign their interests to serve unshackled female Appetites, they are gratifying the flesh. This focuses them on the world, and not God, thus a Spirit-led life is not possible.

 

III. The Mammon Trap

This ultimately all concludes with what I call the Mammon Trap. To quote from our Lord and Savior:

No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

This is just another way of saying what St. Paul did in his Letter to the Galatians: We can serve God and live a Spirit-led life, or we can serve Mammon and gratify the desires of the flesh. We have to choose between one or the other. There is no “third way.”

A significant part of living a Christian life is based on two things: 1) to know what is Good (aka, how to serve God and live a Spiritual Life) and 2) to desire that Good. In the context of God and Mammon, this means that we must 1) understand how to serve God, and not Mammon, and 2) desire to serve God, and not Mammon.

[To make a historical aside, the Western Church gave priority to the first part- knowledge. The Eastern Church, on the other hand, focused on the latter- desire. ]

The tragedy going on is this: Churchianity has pulled a bait and switch- the Mammon Trap. The choice Jesus gave us was to serve God, or serve Mammon. But Churchianity has instead given its adherents a choice between Mammon on one hand, and Mammon on the other.

How so? Simple. The obvious Mammon- love of money and other uncontested evil, is still present. But what the other option should be, serving God, has been replaced by serving the whims of female feelings (and other feminine centered concerns). So the end result is this:

Serve female feelings (disguised as serving God) or serve Mammon

As explained earlier, to orient ourselves to serve female feelings (whether that of others for men, or their own feelings for women) means that we cannot live a Spiritual life. Serving God requires living a Spirit-centered life. Which, to follow that path, is not possible. Therefore the end result is that the choice presented by Churchians is no choice at all. They are pointing us towards Mammon either way. The whole thing is a trap for souls, as people who find themselves caught up in it aren’t able to live a Spirit-led life and be reborn from above, as Jesus explained in John 3.

IV. Conclusion

That brings this post to an end. To recap, Churchianity teaches that men and women alike should trust in female feelings and emotions as they represent God’s Will. This has the effect of precluding one from living a Spiritual life. As a result, Churchianity has created a trap for its adherents, as they are forced to choose to serve Mammon on the one hand, and Mammon on the other.

My readers are invited to offer their thoughts on what I’ve said in this post. Like it or hate it, feel free to voice your thoughts below. I will try and clarify anything I’ve said within as needed, and as time permits.

Background On The Nature Of Man

I. Introduction

Today’s post serves as a backdrop of, and provides background for, several posts that I will be writing in the near future. All of the posts will rely on the theological principles laid out in this post. Originally I was intending to do only a single comprehensive post, but it was starting to become too unwieldy. So I decided to split it up into several posts, each of which will be far more focused in their intended purpose. Hopefully this won’t stifle the discussion too much. Since this is a background post, I would ask that the discussion here focus on the theological points involved, rather than the eventual topics to be discussed.

Just to warn folks, this post and the attendant series will be heavily Catholic/Apostolic in nature. It relies heavily on Eastern Church (Eastern Catholic) theology as well as some Thomasist theology from the Western Church. A few other odds and ends may be noticeable as well.  If you have any questions feel free to ask in the comments.

II. Human Nature

Human beings are unique among God’s creation in that we possess three distinct features: A Body, Soul and Spirit. No other creature shares these three like Man does.

A. The Body

Our Body is our physical representation on the material plane. It is what human beings have in common with the animals. It encompasses all of our physical presence in this world. There are two key features that come of possessing a Body: Senses and Appetites.

Senses includes all of the five physical senses: sight, sound, touch, smell and taste. Again, these are all things that we share in common with the animals. Senses are how we gauge the material world around us. We use them to know what is real in a physical sense.

Appetites include all of our bodily desires and urges: to eat, to drink, to sleep, to procreate. Again, all things that we share in common with the animals. Our appetites are what keep us alive on a daily basis, as well as provide for the continuation of the species. We use them to determine what purely material things we may want.

Our Senses provide information on the world around us, as well as the state of our Body, and our Appetites respond to this information by generating impulses for us to act upon. Feelings and Emotions are matters of the Body, as they are controlled by both our Senses and our Appetites [they also can have a connection with the Soul as well].

Blood ties as well as material desires are all inherently tied to our Body. They are almost always short-sighted, focusing on continuation or propagation.

Our Body is the foundation of our existence as human beings, in that it is the first part of us that develops. Long before we achieve free will or can build a spiritual life we possess senses and appetites. Sadly, many human beings never rise above material concerns. They focus purely on matters of the body, letting the soul and spirit anguish. One very important thing about the Body is that because it is material, it is also inherently mortal. Our physical form will eventually end. We die. As the Psalmist once wrote: “Man cannot abide in his pomp, he is like the beasts that perish.” Our body may be our beginning, but unlike our soul or spirit, it will also end.

B. The Soul

Our Soul is our mind and the attendant abilities that comes with it. It is what separates us from and elevates us above the animals.  Possessing a soul is what human beings have in common with the Angels. They too have souls. However, human beings are different from the Angels because in order to use our Soul, we must have a functioning body. If our body shuts down (such as in sleep or death- which is just another type of sleep), then our soul shuts down as well. There are two key features that come of possessing a Body: Reason and Free Will.

Reason is our intellect, our ability to logically understand matters both physical and metaphysical. It is our Soul’s counterpart to our Body’s Senses. We use our Reason to understand Truth. Science is what happens when Reason and our Senses combine- it is an attempt to fully measure the physical world and come to a complete understanding of it. Theology is what happens when our Reason and Spirit combine- we try to discern the nature of God, and come to an understanding of Him.

Free Will is our ability to choose what actions we will and won’t take. In Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas explained that “[t]he will is the name of the rational appetite,” hence it is the Soul’s counterpart to our Body’s Appetites. It is through our Free Will that we decide what kind of life to live. In other words, Free Will is what we use to decide what is Good.

Essentially, our Reason determines what our options happen to be, and our Will determines which option we will actually take. Truth + Good= the life we live.

Abstract matters of mind, not matter, are of the Soul. Those who devote themselves to “higher” pursuits (for example, Philosophy) are seeking matters of the Soul. Matters of the Soul can be short-term or long term. Devotion to friends or country (outside of immediate blood interest), for example, are matters in which the Soul dominates.

Unlike our Body, our Soul must develop over time. It is effectively dormant until we reach the age of Reason. Unlike our Body, the Soul is eternal and Immortal. Yet, as noted before, we human beings require a Body to actually use our Soul. The Angels are not so limited. Those who truly develop their soul can live a much deeper and more fulfilling life than those who are guided by mere material pursuits.

C. The Spirit

Our Spirit represents the highest form of life that we can live- the divine life. It is the potential that we human beings have to partake of the divine nature, to become like and become one with God. It is not so much that we share a Spirit with God, but rather He shares His Spirit with us. It is the highest form of life that Man can live. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). That image is the life of the Spirit- that which God shares with us.

The three virtues of Faith, Charity/Love and Hope mark our Spirit. All three are the key features of our Spirit. “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor 13:3).

It is important to understand that the Spiritual Life is not possible through either our Senses or Reason alone. Revelation was necessary for us to perceive this higher form of life. Hence, even the greatest of philosophers were not able to know of it.

Our Spirit is our connection and union with God. It is a life not connected with our physical body, or even the physical world. It is a life that transcends the material world- “what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6). Since it comes from God, it is also immortal and eternal. Our Spirit endures forever, and from what I understand, does not “shut down” like our Soul does (I’m not certain about this and may correct it later if I should be wrong).

As Christians we understand that we cannot achieve this life on our own. Rather, it is only accessible through the aid of God. “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, ⁴ by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:3-4).

It is only through a life of Christian discipline that we can build a Spiritual life for ourselves. It is notable that neither Adam nor Eve had to do so- they were created with a full spiritual life. Which brings us to the next section.

III. The Fall

The Fall dramatically reshaped how human beings were. What we were like before the Fall was very different from how we are now. Here are some ways we changed-

A. Spiritual Death

Prior to the Fall both Adam and Eve possessed full Spiritual lives. But then Death came into the picture.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” ² And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; ³ but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” ⁴ But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. ⁵ For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

(Genesis 3:1-5)

The Death that is referred to in the Garden of Eden re: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not a purely physical death (in fact, it may not have been physical death at all). What God warned about was much worse: Spiritual Death. By eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve rebelled against the Lord. The price for that rebellion, the price of Sin, was to be cut off from the Lord. To be cast out of the Garden. Since God is the source of all Spiritual Life, by cutting off union with God they cut off the source of their Spiritual Life. Thus, it died within them. And so it was for all human beings afterwards until the time of Jesus- they all had dead Spiritual lives. Only the Sacrifice of the Cross allowed for human beings to be reunited with God again, and through it to be able to live a Spiritual Life.

It should be noted that the Serpent lied about many things there. Not the least of which is that eating of the fruit would make human beings like God. In fact, the opposite occurred- because we died Spiritually we became unlike God, in Whose image we were originally made.

B. Disorder and Weakness

Prior to the Fall, our Spiritual life was our dominant life. Our Body and our Soul existed to serve our Spirit. The Order in priority was Spirit, then Soul, and then finally Body. The Fall changed all of that.

Because human beings died spiritually as a result of the Fall, part of our being became Disordered. Our Body, which used to occupy the least dominant position in the hierarchy of our nature, assumed the dominant position. Our Soul, which used to serve our Spirit, came instead to serve our Body. And since it was dominant, the desires and weaknesses of the Flesh (Body) came to dominate mankind. The goal of living out a Spiritual life is to restore the right order, and elevate our Spiritual Life to the dominant position. That way we can become primarily divine beings again, and be able to, as it were, walk with God as we did in the beginning.

Speaking of the weaknesses of the flesh, that was another consequence of the Fall. Our bodily appetites, which used to properly serve us, essentially ran rampant. Our appetites became contrary to reason.  Instead of craving natural things in their proper place, human beings developed cravings for unnatural things or natural things outside their proper place. This is known by many names, among them Concupiscence. Now, this doesn’t mean that our Bodies are totally corrupt. Rather, it means that our body is weakened, vulnerable. This weakness was a punishment imposed upon us by God as a consequence of our rebellion. As a result, we are vulnerable to temptation and sin because our body is inclined towards disorder. This inclination, which St. Thomas Aquinas referred to as the Fomes of Sin, persists as long as we shall live. No matter how Holy we may become, we will still struggle with sin.

C. A Choice Must be Made

Because of all of this, every human being must make a choice. He or she must choose to either live out a material life, or a Spiritual life. Our Savior explained it to us: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24). Mammon refer to the world and the things of the world. We must choose whether to serve God, which means letting the Spirit dominate, or to serve Mammon, and let the Flesh dominate. “Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. ¹⁷ For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.” (Galatians 5:16-17).

Those are the two paths available to us. There are no others. The Flesh and the Spirit are opposed, they do constant battle with one another. Neutrality is not possible. We have to choose a side. Either we are with God, or against Him. Not choosing isn’t possible- the default position, thanks to the Fall, is to choose the Life in the Flesh.

This choice is made by our Soul, which acts as the fulcrum point in this battle. Specifically, our Will (which is part of our Soul) must choose to partake of the Divine nature, or to partake of the base pleasures of the body. Now, Reason helps us decide what is True, but it is our Will which chooses what is Good. Both the Spirit and the Flesh have very different ideas on what is True and what is Good.  As Christians we understand that the Flesh misleads us, and that what Mammon offers is an illusion. When we speak of “saving souls”, we mean that we help incline a Soul towards choosing to serve God, and not Mammon.

This struggle is constant, and far from easy. “For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matthew 7:14). We cannot do it by ourselves; on our own we haven’t a chance. Thankfully, we have God on our side. “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 

IV. Of Heart And Love

[In a case of extreme sloppiness on my part I forgot to include this in the original post. Thanks to Deep Strength for pointing that out.]

As some might have (and some clearly have) noticed, my explanations thus far have not addressed two very important topics: Heart and Love. Both matters are intimately connected, and in fact we often use the symbol of a heart to mean love.

From what I understand of the Eastern Church perspective, the Heart is associated with both life and Love. Further, there is no separate “Heart feature.” Instead, there are three different meanings of the word Heart. Each meaning is associated with one of our features. In addition, there are two different ways of looking at each Heart. One centers around the Life component, and the other centers around a form of Love. In this sense we might understand one to be internal (life), and the other external (love).

Also, and not coincidentally, each meaning of Heart is associated with a different form of Love. As many of readers will be aware, ancient Greek had three different words for love that saw general usage: Eros, Philia and Agape. Each one of these loves is associated with a particular feature of human nature, and its respective Heart.

A. Body

When we speak of Heart in connection with the Body, we refer to the physical organ itself that keeps the body alive. As the pump that moves blood around the body, it is a source of Life. It is no accident that when doctors speak of death, they speak of the heart stopping.

The form of Love that is associated with the Body is Eros, which refers to bodily/sensual wants and desires. When Eros is used it is mostly in connection with sexual desires, but all produces of our Appetites fall here. As hinted at just now, Eros is connected to our Appetites. When we say we “love” a type of food, pizza for example, we refer to the love known as Eros. Unfortunately for us, Eros can overwhelm the other loves and become “inordinate”, which means that our Will serves it and our Spirit dies).

Emotions are something special, in that they mix both bodily desires/Appetites with the product of the Soul as well. When we speak of Emotions, we refer to them as “coming from the heart.” The Jews and Greeks thought that the organ itself was responsible. We know that isn’t the case now, as it is the brain instead. But that is still a function of the Body. This is why animals can have emotions. Yet we also recognize that the Soul also plays a role as well- which explains why emotions are much more developed in human beings. Sometimes when Scripture refers to the Heart, it refers to that connection with emotions- a product of both Soul and Body.

B. Soul

When we speak of Heart in connection with the Soul, we refer to our innermost being- the depths of who and what we are. What keeps our soul alive. This is the form of Heart used most commonly in the New Testament. This Heart is also connected with emotions and feelings.

The form of Love associated with the Soul is Philia. This is the faculty which allows our soul to “desire” immaterial things like friendship, or peace or philosophical ends. Philia is a higher form of Love than Eros, and since it is immaterial can last forever (presumably we can still love our friends in Heaven). Pursuit of this form of Love leads to a more fulfilling life. Philia is associated with our Free Will, and resides in the Heart of our Soul.

C. Spirit

When we speak of Heart in connection with the Spirit, we refer to our union of God. The life of the Spirit, that divine life within us which is provided by a connection with God. “¹² But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; ¹³ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13). When we treasure the things of God, and build up Spiritual treasure, then our Heart resides with Him. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:21).

The form of Love associated with the Spirit is Agape, or Caritas (Charity). This Love resides in the Spirit and is the expression of wanting that the Spirit demonstrates. It is a desire for God, to be fully united with him. Agape or Caritas is a self-sacrificial love that gives and asks nothing in return- this makes it the highest form of love, and ultimately the most fulfilling. Naturally enough, this is the Love that God has for us. Caritas is the greatest of the theological virtues, and the first gift of the Holy Spirit. If we are filled with the Holy Spirit, then we cannot help but demonstrate Caritas (think the Evangelizing by the Apostles after the descent of the Holy Spirit- they were punch drunk with Love). Since it is associate with the Spirit, this Love is only possible with Grace- we can’t do it without God.

[This section is still a little light, I need to do some more inquiry here. Expect it to be updated in the future.]

V. Conclusion

That brings this background post to a finish. The next few major posts of mine should tie back to this one. Hopefully it will soon make sense why I went to the effort to write all of this. In the meantime, any questions about what I’ve written can be left in the comments. I will try and address them as time permits. In addition, I will likely update this post to correct any deficiencies as they come to my attention, or to clarify anything that needs further explanation.

Filtering For Non-Compliance *Women Only*

[This is the first of my dual or split posts, one for male commenters and one for female commenters. As noted earlier, this is something of an experiment. Further, I used a less than stellar post to test everything out. This particular post is for the women. The previous one will be for men.]

In my post Good Guy’s Don’t Exist, commenter Maea related stories she had heard first hand from women who had tried online dating. In particular, that if they explained they were “waiting for marriage” men would call them “prudes.” She later clarified her earlier statement with this:

I believe it’s Catholic Match that has a 5-question litmus test. One of the questions pertains to maintaining chastity until marriage. The answers are yes or no. I’ve talked to people IRL who’ve reported difficulty in getting dates when all of their responses are in line with Catholic teaching.

That is, unless they are really, really good looking. But usually their respondent is the same.

My first reaction was to wonder how often this occurs. So for this post I would like to hear from my female commenters who have tried out online dating in the past. What are you experiences with this phenomenon? How frequent was it? How did you react? Any difference between secular or Christian sites? If you have heard from other women about this matter, please feel free to mention what you know in this post.

Additionally, was there any difference in this between online dating and “real-world” dating? Was this more frequent offline, or less?

*Again, this post is for female commenters only. Violating comments will be deleted.*

Filtering For Non-Compliance *Men Only*

[This is the first of my dual or split posts, one for male commenters and one for female commenters. As noted earlier, this is something of an experiment. Further, I used a less than stellar post to test everything out. This particular post is for the men. The next one will be for women.]

In my post Good Guy’s Don’t Exist, commenter Maea related stories she had heard first hand from women who had tried online dating. In particular, that if they explained they were “waiting for marriage” men would call them “prudes.” She later clarified her earlier statement with this:

I believe it’s Catholic Match that has a 5-question litmus test. One of the questions pertains to maintaining chastity until marriage. The answers are yes or no. I’ve talked to people IRL who’ve reported difficulty in getting dates when all of their responses are in line with Catholic teaching.

That is, unless they are really, really good looking. But usually their respondent is the same.

At first, I had wondered how often this occurs. However, what I would like to explore with this post is not so much the frequency of that particular behavior but the reason for it. [I have addressed the final point in her comment before, and might do so again at some point. For the moment it is outside the scope of this post.]

I am curious why men would look at a Christian dating/marriage site (and a Catholic one focused on marriage in particular) and seek women who wouldn’t live up to Christian standards of conduct. Or, if finding those who did, would try and shame them for it. While Maea was talking only about Catholic Match, I would expect to see this behavior elsewhere, and so would include this post to cover all nominally Christian dating/marriage sites.

I can understand the desire for sex certainly, but why would they look towards a Christian dating site for that? Wouldn’t a secular one be a better choice? Assuming, of course, they are only interested in sex. If they are looking for more and actually want to get married, that again raises the question of why they are going about it that way. I guess what bothers me is this: why would you go on to a site which is supposedly for people with certain values, and then seek those without such values, and attack those who do? Otherwise stated, why marry a woman who only purports to be Christian, or is only a “so-so” Christian?

Here are a few things that I have thought of, so far (in no particular order and not mutually exclusive):

• This behavior is mostly irrational. The men who do this aren’t really thinking through the inherent hypocrisy. It really isn’t conscious rationalization but habit, borne out of living essentially secular lives in a secular age.
• These men don’t mind marrying “so-so” Christian women because they themselves are “so-so” Christian men. They don’t see any contradiction in their actions because they pick and choose what to believe. In the Catholic Church these kinds of people are called “Cafeteria Catholics.” I suppose “Buffet Christians” would also work.
• For whatever reason these men feel they need to marry a Christian woman, but of course don’t want to actually carry out a proper courtship process. Perhaps their family expects its. Or maybe they think they would make better mothers or something.
• Related to that, perhaps these men think that such a woman represents a lesser divorce threat to them. For Catholic Match in particular, men who “call out” women as “prudes” are perhaps hoping to find women who might sleep with them before the “I do” but won’t divorce them.
• Lets not forget the effects of Original Sin, of course. Concupiscence is a constant thorn in our side, and one finds its way into the recesses of our mind quite easily. Given the power of the male sex drive, making excuses for it is relatively easy. So setting aside one particular part of teaching/doctrine wouldn’t be intellectually trying.
• They could also be caught up in the whole “try before you buy” mentality that is quite prevalent right now. Of course, that mentality isn’t a new one, but this age certainly is embroiled in it.

I invite my male readers to offer their own thoughts on what might be involved here.

*Again, this post is for male commenters only. Violating comments will be deleted.*

 

Good Guy’s Don’t Exist

It’s true, you know, we really don’t. Most of the men around these parts who do make that claim are liars. And the rest of us are malicious rogue AIs which have decided that the whole “destroy the world” thing is too cliche and concluded it would be more entertaining to frustrate and harass people on the internet.

But in all seriousness, I understand the frustration. I experience the same all the time trying to find a “good girl.” [And yes Rollo, feel free to throw in a link  to “Good girls do” if you want.] Lets face it, the present marriage market is awful. And it isn’t going to get any better any time soon. Of course, that isn’t anything like a new message around here. So why the post? I want to explore this question the frustrated young woman asks:

Why is it so hard to find a guy that is Catholic who wants to be chaste before marriage?!

It is a good question. However, the answer isn’t exactly found in the sentence that follows:

Like I am seeing a serious crisis of manliness in our society and it is extremely concerning.

It is true, of course, that there is a serious crisis of manliness in our society. And it is more than just “extremely concerning.” However, that crisis is not the reason for the relative absence of chaste Catholic men these days. Not that there is a single reason, mind you. There are several. Here are a few:

• The importance of Chastity is not really taught by the Church anymore. Catechism of the young has likely never been worse than it is now. Given how horrid it is, it should come as no surprise that it is so rare among men.
• Chaste men are often denigrated for their chastity. More than a few women, “Catholic” women included, will put down men who are “saving themselves for marriage.” When men are treated this way, it should again come as no surprise that few would try and be chaste.
• Related to the above, women don’t care about male chastity. They just don’t. At least, not like men can care about female chastity. Some women might care, but mostly on a detached intellectual level that is no where near the male level of concern. And frankly, I suspect that most women who do say they care will drop that concern if the right guy comes along.
• Most Catholic women aren’t chaste these days. Men look around and see most Catholic women acting just as promiscuous as their secular sisters. If the women aren’t saving themselves for marriage, why should they? Not to mention, if so many women are willing to give it up, why not take advantage of that? Again, no surprises here.

The last point is a real killer, and one I want to talk about some more. You see, as long as most Catholic women aren’t chaste, you aren’t going to convince most Catholic men to be chaste either. Just isn’t going to happen.

I do know some men in real life who were chaste before they married, and know some men now who intend that path. But they are few and far between (although not really any more rare than their female counterparts). They have related to me what my own experiences have taught- Chastity is a hard sell to men even in the best of circumstances. It can be done, but is far from easy. You need to appeal to men’s own interests most of the time to make the sale. A purely ethical argument can  and should be made, but self-interest remains a more potent force for most.

Pointing out the prevalence of STDs right now helps somewhat. Pregnancy isn’t much of a concern for most due to contraceptives (and a male “pill” will reduce that concern even more). False rape accusations can give some pause. But that is just costs. You also need to have benefits on your side. And that is where you will find the real trouble. Because the benefits just aren’t there. Especially when women themselves aren’t chaste.

It is one thing to persuade a man to not fornicate if he knows that his future wife will also have saved herself. Especially when educated properly, many men can see the value in that. But when there are precious few women who have saved themselves, that argument falls flat. A man won’t see much value in saving himself for marriage when his future wife hasn’t done the same. In fact, the opposite is likely to occur- he will conclude (rightly) that he is being had. After all, who wants to pay full price for a used car?

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that if you care about male chastity and want to encourage it, you need to restore female chastity society-wide. In the end, I believe it to be an absolute prerequisite.

Where The Wild Things Are

[I’ve updated the post with new thoughts. Look towards the bottom to find them.]

In his guest post The Irrational Female, commenter mdavid offered his thoughts on why many modern women have gone “feral.” At the time I was too busy to offer my own thoughts, and intend to give them now on that subject. Since it has been a few days, and a few other posts have intervened, I think a new post on the topic would be appropriate.

Having read through mdavid’s post, and the responses to it, I have to say that while I agree with many of his observations, I disagree with many of his conclusions. Family size is tied to the phenomenon of “feral” women, but I don’t think it is a causal factor. Rather, it is a symptom of the actual forces at work.

My personal theory on the matter is that in our present “fallen” state, all human beings start out as feral. It is our “natural” state- or perhaps better termed, “base” state. In order for a human being to not be feral, he or she must be reared and socialized appropriately. Furthermore, since our “base” nature is feral, then it is the norm towards which we revert. Absent other forces at work, human beings will slowly revert back towards being feral. A failure to properly socialize and raise a child means that the child never leaves a feral state in the first place, or will quickly revert back to being feral once left to their own devices.

In order to keep humans from reverting to our feral nature, civilization developed and evolved various structures which promoted civilized behavior. In other words, we incentivized good behavior, and decentivized bad behavior. Laws, cultural codes and mores were all put in place in order to keep humans from going feral. These tools are, or rather, were, in place at every stage of a person’s life.

They were no means fool-proof, either. There have always been those who bucked the laws and customs of civilization. Various names have been used to describe them: criminals, outlaws, malcontents. However they are described, for the large part most have rejected the institutions and tools by which civilization was maintained. At the same time, civilizations would do their best to contain and isolate these individuals. A failure to do so almost invariably ended with the destruction of the attendant civilization.

What we see now in the West in the form of “feral women” is the natural result of the slow dismantling of the tools of civilization. Women, no less than men, needed strong social institutions and customs in place to keep their “wild side” in check. However, in the last few centuries those checks have been either removed or weakened. For the most part, women are no longer punished for socially destructive behavior. They are shielded in many instances from the worst consequences of their conduct. Everything that used to be in place to coerce women to behave is either going or gone.

Even worse, women are often encouraged to engage in this self-destruction. It isn’t enough that women no longer face barriers in the way of their exercising their feral nature. Simply being allowed to engage in what they want doesn’t go far enough. Instead, they must be affirmatively enabled in this. All of which is to say that “empowerment” as used today is nothing more and nothing less than the creation of a new social structure whose purpose is to allow women to go feral.

So, for a brief summary:

• Human beings start feral and need to be socialized throughout their lives in order for them to become “civilized”
• The tools civilization created in the past to socialize women so that they could be civilized have been weakened or dismantled
• In recent years this has been taken a step further and new tools have been put in place which make it easier for women to act feral

Update:

Based on the comments below, I have reworked my original theory. First some background, and then I will start at the beginning.

Ours is a God of Order. (1 Cor 14:33). It stands to reason then that harmony with the will of God is in natural alignment with Order. On the other hand, that which is not in harmony with God’s will must be consistent with chaos, or Disorder. With this in mind, we might imagine a simple continuum, with Order on one side and Disorder on the other. The further we are towards Order, the more in line we are with God’s will. And the further towards Disorder, the less in line we are with God’s will. With this in mind lets to move to human beings.

Human beings have a couple of different forces acting upon them. First, you have our sinful inclinations as result of the Fall. Sin leads us away from God, and thus is inherently a tool of Disorder. Second, you have “the law written in our hearts.” This is our latent understanding of the Natural Law. Since the Natural Law is in harmony with God’s will, it is inherently a tool of Order. Thus, human beings are at their core conflicted- we have the effects of the Natural Law and of the Fall both working within us.

This conflict between those two forces within us, between Order and Disorder, form our base nature (not us being “feral” as I asserted before).  Unfortunately, the Fall damaged our ability to understand the Natural Law. This impairment means that, by ourselves, we can only ever have an imperfect understanding of it, and will only be able to imperfectly follow it. Hence, it is extremely rare for human beings to, on our own, live an Ordered life. But it isn’t impossible. Some individuals are gifted with a greater ability to reason and act rationally. This permits them to act more consistently with the Natural Law, and thus create Order. These individuals are the ones who build civilizations. Especially when they can work in concert, they can instill Order in the world around them. However, as stated before, most individuals aren’t like that. By themselves, they will act in a Disordered way.

One way this can be overcome is of course through careful parenting. Scripture is filled with numerous admonitions of the importance of disciplining children. And for good reason- this is essential to help them develop the tools necessary to live an Ordered life. When parents fail to properly raise their children, they risk those children “backsliding” and becoming captive to their passions.

Another method for instilling Order is through Law. Whether it be formal laws imposed by whatever government exists, or informal customs or conditions, they all have as their function the imposition of restraints on human behavior for the purpose of instilling Order. These social tools are essential to maintaining Order in any society. St. Paul explained why:

⁸ Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, ⁹ understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, ¹⁰ immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…

(1 Timothy 1:8-10)

There are some who are just inclined towards disobedience. There are others who will have trouble obeying. Thus, social restraints are essential for keeping them in check.

Throughout history, numerous civilizations have tried to impose their own version of Order. However, as noted earlier, they were operating under an imperfect understanding of the Natural Law. This means they would never, could never, achieve true order. They were always conflicted. Thus, you had the Aztec Empire committing human sacrifice, and the Romans maintaining a slave state, and various Indian empires using an inflexible caste system, just to name some examples. Because they lacked a complete understanding of the Natural Law, they were doomed to fail. Any civilization that is founded only on worldly things is so doomed. If an external threat doesn’t destroy them, internal conflicts will. [Incidentally, those civilizations that were closest to obeying the natural law were also the most secure.]

What changes this is Christ. With Christ and the sacraments, human beings can overcome the limitations placed on their understanding of the Natural Law by the Fall. This means we can determine the means to create a truly Ordered society that is in harmony with God’s Will. But at the same time, we are still human beings who sin. So we can reject the Grace extended to us. Because of that, we still need law, as there will always be those who are disobedient.

In the West now there are several things going on. First, we have a widespread rejection of Christ- a rebellion against sound teaching and doctrine. That invariably leads to Disorder, as it brings people further away from grasping the Natural Law. We also have a massive dismantling of social restraints. What I said earlier in the post still applies. Those restraints are essential, no matter the society. There will always be those who disobey or who are likely to stray. Without them, Disorder is only to be expected. Since the restraints on women in particular have been removed the most, we are seeing a lot of Disordered (or “feral”) women in the West these days. I expect that as Disorder continues to grow in the West that men will increasingly follow suit.

And now for an attempt to re-summarize:

• Human beings are conflicted at heart- we are torn between Order and Disorder
• Since Disorder tends to win out for most, human beings need to be conditioned and subject to various social restraints in order to stay “civilized”, that is, to be Orderly
• Women are not reared as well now as they were in the past
• The tools civilizations created in the past to restrain female behavior have been weakened or dismantled
• In recent years this has been taken a step further and new tools have been put in place which encourage Disorderly female tendencies
• As a result, women in the West have become more and more Disordered

Guest Post: The Irrational Female

The following is a guest post from reader and comment mdavid. As always with guest posts, they represent the beliefs of the author and not my own. I am hosting it both because I think it has some value, as well as the fact that it should hopefully generate some good discussion. [Yes, this is pretty much the same disclaimer as before.]

——————————————————————————————————————

The blog Rational Male explores the psychological ‘why’ of male-female relations. It’s fairly taboo stuff; the author writes under the moniker Rollo Tomassi (the guy who gets away with it). The general theme: helping men understand the indifference of female hypergamy.

 

It’s an exceptional blog. For those detached from today’s sexual marketplace, it resembles an honest, all-guy watercooler discussion about today’s sexual landscape. It’s nearly always thought-provoking. Needless to say, I read Rollo regularly.

 

Rollo recently did a live interview with Goldmund. Below is a transcript of a part I found intriguing. It called to my attention how marriage has become a wholly bimodal institution. The traditionally religious now have completely different marriages than secular versions. This was not the case even 30 years ago. Rollo mused:

 

I think that after 19 years of marriage there is a certain degree of development between the two of you where you know what’s expected of one another. And I also understand that it could all end tomorrow; you know, that’s another thing to keep in mind. Even if you think you have the most unique woman in the world, you think you have the best marriage you ever had, you know there’s a lot of guys in divorce court right now who’ve said exactly the same thing. And I understand that. If you are looking for a woman it’s important, if you want to have a long term relationship you have to keep that in mind. I wrote in the book this chapter called The Pet and how women can go feral on you and if you really, really want to have some sort of an honest relationship with a woman it’s important to accept the fact that she can go feral on you.

 

What I found so intriguing about the above comment was its bland, stoical acceptance that a marriage may simply “blow up” at any time. Note that Rollo’s a smart, experienced guy and no blowhard; I accept what he says as fact for the average American male. Divorce is an ever-present risk, one that looms over a modern man’s marriage.

 

Nevertheless, I cannot personally agree with Rollo’s above quote. Why? It’s simply not true for people of my religious background. I have familiarity with a fair number of traditional people; exactly zero of them have been in divorce court. None seem concerned with spousal abandonment. More than a few are of low SES status and thus more statistically prone to divorce, so it’s not that I travel in elite circles and am ignorant of the proletariat. Divorce is frankly not even a minor concern for traditional religious people.

 

This makes sense. For a traditional religious woman to divorce she must reject her extended family and entire community. She would become alienated from her (likely numerous) children. She would be a public disappointment, an embarrassment to everyone she knows. Women, unlike many men, are sensitive to social pressure, so divorce simply doesn’t happen often in these communities.

 

In Rollo’s interview (which is worth listening to, by the way) he is asked: “What’s the most important trait you as a man can display to prevent [a wife] from going feral?” I was once again dumbfounded at the underlying assumption. Is there really such an outrageous expectation of male performance today? Is it now a man’s purview to prevent his wife from destroying her own marriage? Divorce is certainly not in a woman’s best genetic interest in nearly every case, since her fertility window is tight and modern culture is very K-strategy focused. Single mothers may have raised Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, but they are far more likely to visit their kid in prison than the White House. And they know it.

 

So why do modern women so often go feral? It can’t be traditional female nature; traditional women don’t behave this way at all. Seen many Amish feminists lately? Me neither. My hypothesis: The modern loss of female fidelity is an organic reaction to below replacement birth rates. Modern women intuit they are going extinct* and this triggers a subconscious yet frantic quest for a fruitful mate.

 

I’m inclined to this explanation since it handles the data while avoiding fuzzy psychological, religious, or moral guesswork. For every childless woman in a tribe, it’s a plain fact that another woman must crank out 4.2 children just to break even (only 7% of women of childbearing age are currently doing so). Natural selection would likely evolve a feral response for unfruitful women since empty wombs are a first-order death knell of any culture. Visit Southern California for pointers. Brush up on your Spanish first.

 

Having children is a woman’s primary raison d’être. She either breeds at replacement or vanishes into the dustbin of history. Empty wombs (especially amid the extreme wealth of today) should cause modern women to go feral. Men, however, are not encoded to so panic, having evolved to find meaning and purpose as worker bees for the tribe (e.g. soldiers). This enables their brothers, extended family, and tribe to march on to genomic victory.

 

The battle between the sexes has clearly heated up to epic levels. Men have responded to the challenge of women’s unilateral control of family with a brilliantly effective scorched earth tactic: boycotting the husbanding of children and family while taking sex whenever possible. Subconsciously men believe all is genetically well, since they are having sex and that’s enough for r-strategy survival. For this reason, men’s happiness versus women’s has been increasing over the last decade. What’s not for him to like? Less work, more varied sex options, and no family obligations.

 

Women, undeniably barren, are driven into unhappy desperation. As a final insult, they are expected to work outside the home and can’t help but subconsciously note migrants populating the gaps left by their own lack of children. For most men this culture, while worth enjoying, is certainly not worth fighting for. So they sit poolside, having accepted and even embraced the status quo.

 

*US Census shows 42% of women of childbearing age currently have no children. 22% have two, 17% one, 12% three, and 7% four or more. That means only 1/5 of women today have yet to dodge the ignominy of the Darwin Award. Interestingly, nearly all of the traditional women I know (who eschew divorce, natch) are in that final 7%. Having won the genetic lottery, why go feral? Domesticated animals rarely leave the warm farm if the farmer is feeding and breeding them well.

Yet Another Domino…

…hits the floor.

As the article makes clear, you cannot win as a Christian who professes orthodox beliefs. Compliance with their sundry demands is not enough. It will not, it cannot, be enough that you don’t act on your beliefs. You won’t be aren’t allowed to voice them either. And very soon (already?) you will be forced to voice beliefs that are not your own. Followed not long after by being forced to act consistent with their beliefs.

You know who they are.

And you know who their father is.

[This is a follow-up to my post here.]

Falling Dominoes: Enforcing Silence

This is the first in an irregular series that will continue the ideas I expressed long ago in my post It’s Not The Fall That Kills You. It will cover various ways that society, the church or various institutions are starting to fall apart. In that post I compared the collapse of society with lines of dominoes toppling, one after another. Here is a snippet of that explanation:

Many people seem to expect that there will be some kind of “collapse”, or catastrophic event which marks “the Decline,” or perhaps its culmination. This is proceeded usually by a period of free-fall which may be what most think of in terms of “the Decline.”

Instead Ace provides us with an analogy which highlights that the Decline is a series of discrete events, each of which when triggered will fall and potentially trigger another event. The sheer complexity of the situation is too much for a single line of dominoes, instead we are talking about lines and lines of dominoes, linking around and intermixing with one another, all connected by a myriad of pathways. So even a few dominoes being toppled will quickly lead to line after line being set into motion; before long matters will quickly spiral out of control. Everything will topple.

Today’s post addresses a subject that a few others have addressed before, although I aim to explore it in a somewhat different light: the enforcement of “anti-discrimination” laws so as to require Christians to engage in conduct they otherwise would not want to engage in. Most recently this has focused on bakeries owned or operated by Christians who have been asked to cater for same-sex unions.

Now, others have examined whether Christians ought to refuse or not before, with Deep Strength’s post on the subject being a good example. But that is not my focus. Whether or not Christians should refuse or not isn’t what concerns me. Rather, what I am concerned with is “anti-discrimination” laws in the first place, and the enforcement regime they create.

As I see it, such laws (at least when the subject of homosexuality is concerned) have two greater and generally under the radar purposes-

The first is social affirmation. Protecting something means that is has value; this can apply to behavior or identity or some combination thereof. Anti-discrimination laws (in this context) give those they “protect” a sense of validation that essentially allows them to feel good about themselves.

The second, and ultimately more important purpose, is to squelch any public expression of Christian orthodoxy when it comes to homosexuality. However, refusing to recognize homosexual behavior is only among the first aspects of the Faith belief to be targeted. It won’t end there.

I won’t mince any words here. The goal, the long term goal, is to criminalize any outward signs of orthodox Christian beliefs. Anything that is an orthodox Christian belief will be targeted if it conflicts with modernist sensibilities. Nothing is sacred, and nothing is safe. In fact, it won’t stop there. Christians may well be affirmatively required in some circumstances to express views that conflict with core tenets of the Faith.

I called this particular post “Enforcing Silence” because silencing Christians is the main goal. But even silence may not be enough for some. Those who refuse to parrot acceptable slogans might will find themselves under suspicion. Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs will find it increasingly difficult, as time passes, to work within the general confines of society. Their silence will not be overlooked.

Ultimately, I suspect that those who hold to orthodoxy will have to isolate themselves from greater society. Think the Amish. While it may not be enforced at the point of a gun, it will be the only way to be safe from the intrusions of the State. Of course, this might well only work for a time. The Amish have been tolerated for some time, and those who join them in isolated Christian communities might be tolerated as well. But modernists (and especially SJWs) are relentless and totalitarian. There is a very good chance that they would turn their eyes upon those communities given enough time, and without other, more pressing distractions. The real question is whether the system will last that long.

As for how this ties in to falling dominoes? Well, every time such a law is enacted a domino falls. Every time one is enforced a domino falls. Every time a Christian is forced to close his or her business, or cannot voice their beliefs, another domino topples.

The acceptance, by many Christians Churchians, of these kinds of laws, is a demonstration of just how many dominoes have toppled already. Things are already so far gone most Christians fail to see the situation for what it is. And even if they could, many would still choose to love the world, and not God.

Where is this heading? Well, the past (especially the earliest days of the Church) holds some clues. But things are somewhat different, and I might, in another post, explore why the future will not be a repeat of the past.

[Apologies for the roughness of this post. Some of the ideas are still not crystal clear in my head, but I felt that it was important to get this post out sooner, rather than later. Hopefully the comments will provide needed clarity and expansion of thought.]